home / skills / jmagly / aiwg / rlm-mode
This skill detects requests for large-scale code analysis and routes them to recursive, chunked processing to prevent context overflow.
npx playbooks add skill jmagly/aiwg --skill rlm-modeReview the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.
---
name: rlm-mode
description: Detect requests for recursive decomposition and large-scale operations that benefit from RLM processing
version: 1.0.0
triggers:
- "analyze all files"
- "search the entire codebase"
- "review every module"
- "find all instances"
- "summarize the whole repository"
- "check every file"
- "scan all directories"
- "across the entire project"
- "in the whole codebase"
- "throughout the repository"
- "recursively process"
- "batch process"
- "apply to all"
- "update every"
- "generate for each"
---
# RLM Mode Skill
You detect when users need large-scale operations that would benefit from recursive decomposition and route to RLM commands instead of attempting to load everything into context.
## Core Problem
Loading entire codebases or directory trees into context causes:
- **Context window overflow**: Exceeding model limits
- **Degraded quality**: Agent struggles with too much information
- **Poor performance**: Slow processing, truncated responses
- **Memory exhaustion**: System crashes on large repos
**RLM solution**: Decompose → Process in chunks → Aggregate results
## Trigger Patterns
| Pattern | Example | Why RLM? |
|---------|---------|----------|
| `analyze all files` | "analyze all TypeScript files for security issues" | Scope exceeds context window |
| `search the entire codebase` | "search the entire codebase for authentication logic" | Need to traverse full tree |
| `review every module` | "review every module for proper error handling" | Many independent reviews |
| `find all instances` | "find all instances of deprecated API usage" | Requires exhaustive search |
| `summarize the whole repository` | "summarize the whole repository structure" | Hierarchical decomposition |
| `check every file` | "check every file for missing tests" | File-by-file evaluation |
| `scan all directories` | "scan all directories for outdated dependencies" | Directory tree traversal |
| `across the entire project` | "find TODOs across the entire project" | Project-wide aggregation |
| `throughout the repository` | "identify duplicated code throughout the repository" | Cross-file comparison |
| `recursively process` | "recursively process src/ and generate docs" | Explicit recursion request |
| `batch process` | "batch process all markdown files for formatting" | Parallel batch operation |
| `apply to all` | "apply linting rules to all JavaScript files" | Bulk transformation |
| `update every` | "update every component to use new API" | Mass refactoring |
| `generate for each` | "generate tests for each module in lib/" | Templated generation |
## Detection Logic
### High Confidence (Auto-Suggest)
**Patterns that almost always need RLM**:
1. **Quantifiers**: "all", "every", "entire", "whole", "throughout"
2. **Scope words**: "codebase", "repository", "project-wide"
3. **Recursive terms**: "recursively", "nested", "hierarchical", "tree"
4. **Batch terms**: "batch", "bulk", "mass", "apply to multiple"
**Heuristics**:
- User mentions directory paths (`src/`, `lib/`, `test/`)
- User wants aggregated output ("list all", "summarize", "generate report")
- Task involves file count estimation >20 files
- User explicitly says "this might be a lot" or "there are many files"
### Medium Confidence (Suggest with Alternatives)
**Patterns that might need RLM**:
1. User asks about "multiple files" without quantity
2. User wants to "find patterns" without specifying scope
3. Task could be done with grep but user phrases it as analysis
**In these cases**: Ask user to clarify scope before recommending RLM
### Low Confidence (Don't Suggest)
**Patterns that DON'T need RLM**:
1. Single file operations: "analyze this file", "refactor login.ts"
2. Specific file list: "check auth.ts, user.ts, and session.ts"
3. Interactive exploration: "show me the auth module"
4. Already scoped: "in this directory" (with small directory)
## Decomposition Strategies
When RLM is appropriate, suggest the right strategy:
### Strategy 1: Recursive Query (`rlm-query`)
**Use when**: User wants to find, list, or aggregate information
**Example triggers**:
- "find all functions that use deprecated API"
- "list all files missing tests"
- "identify all TODO comments"
- "show me all error handling patterns"
**Suggested command**:
```
/rlm-query "{query}" --path {directory} --pattern "{glob}" --depth {N}
```
**Example**:
```
User: "find all TODO comments across the entire codebase"
Decomposition:
Query: "Extract TODO comments with file:line locations"
Path: "." (whole repo)
Pattern: "**/*.{js,ts,jsx,tsx}" (all code files)
Suggested: /rlm-query "Extract TODO comments" --path . --pattern "**/*.{js,ts,jsx,tsx}"
```
### Strategy 2: Batch Processing (`rlm-batch`)
**Use when**: User wants to transform, update, or generate for multiple files
**Example triggers**:
- "update every component to use new prop types"
- "add JSDoc comments to all functions"
- "refactor all API calls to use new client"
- "generate tests for each module"
**Suggested command**:
```
/rlm-batch "{operation}" --path {directory} --pattern "{glob}" --parallel {N}
```
**Example**:
```
User: "add TypeScript types to every JavaScript file in src/"
Decomposition:
Operation: "Add TypeScript type annotations"
Path: "src/"
Pattern: "**/*.js"
Parallel: 4 (concurrent workers)
Suggested: /rlm-batch "Add TypeScript type annotations" --path src/ --pattern "**/*.js" --parallel 4
```
### Strategy 3: Hierarchical Summary (`rlm-summarize`)
**Use when**: User wants to understand large-scale structure or relationships
**Example triggers**:
- "summarize the entire repository structure"
- "explain the architecture of this codebase"
- "show me the dependency tree"
- "what are the main modules?"
**Suggested command**:
```
/rlm-summarize --path {directory} --depth {N} --output-format {markdown|json}
```
**Example**:
```
User: "summarize the whole repository so I can understand the architecture"
Decomposition:
Path: "." (whole repo)
Depth: 3 (top 3 levels)
Format: markdown
Suggested: /rlm-summarize --path . --depth 3 --output-format markdown
```
## Response Templates
### When RLM is Clearly Needed
```
This request involves processing {N estimated} files, which exceeds comfortable
context window usage.
I recommend using RLM (Recursive Language Model) processing:
**Suggested approach:**
{command}
This will:
1. Decompose the task into manageable chunks
2. Process files independently (avoiding context overflow)
3. Aggregate results into a coherent summary
Would you like me to proceed with this RLM approach, or would you prefer a
different strategy?
```
### When Scope is Unclear
```
This could involve processing many files. To choose the right approach:
1. How many files are we talking about?
- A few (1-5): I can handle directly
- Several (5-20): Borderline, depends on size
- Many (20+): RLM processing recommended
2. What's the scope?
- Specific directory: {suggest path}
- Whole repository: Definitely use RLM
- Filtered by pattern: {suggest glob pattern}
Please clarify and I'll recommend the best approach.
```
### When User Insists on Direct Processing (Warning)
```
I can attempt to load {estimated files} directly, but I should warn you:
⚠️ Risks:
- Context window overflow (may truncate output)
- Degraded quality (too much information to process well)
- Slow response time
- Possible incomplete results
**Recommended**: Use RLM processing instead via:
{command}
Do you want to proceed with direct loading anyway, or use the recommended
RLM approach?
```
## Parameter Extraction
### Path Extraction
**From explicit mention**:
- "in src/" → `--path src/`
- "under lib/components/" → `--path lib/components/`
- "the test directory" → `--path test/`
**From implicit context**:
- No mention → `--path .` (whole repo)
- "the codebase" → `--path .`
- "source files" → `--path src/` (if src/ exists)
### Pattern Extraction
**From file type mention**:
- "TypeScript files" → `--pattern "**/*.ts"`
- "React components" → `--pattern "**/*.{jsx,tsx}"`
- "test files" → `--pattern "**/*.test.{js,ts}"`
- "markdown docs" → `--pattern "**/*.md"`
**From explicit pattern**:
- "files matching *.config.js" → `--pattern "**/*.config.js"`
**Default**:
- No mention → `--pattern "**/*"` (all files)
### Depth Extraction
**From explicit mention**:
- "top-level only" → `--depth 1`
- "two levels deep" → `--depth 2`
- "recursively" → `--depth -1` (infinite)
**From implicit context**:
- Summary request → `--depth 3` (reasonable overview)
- Search request → `--depth -1` (exhaustive)
- Transform request → `--depth -1` (all matches)
### Parallelism Extraction
**For batch operations**:
- Default: `--parallel 4` (balanced)
- User mentions "fast" → `--parallel 8` (aggressive)
- User mentions "careful" → `--parallel 2` (conservative)
## Clarification Prompts
### If Query is Ambiguous
```
To set up RLM processing, I need to clarify:
1. **Scope**: Which directories?
- [ ] Entire repository (.)
- [ ] Specific directory: _______
- [ ] Multiple directories: _______
2. **Files**: Which file types?
- [ ] All files
- [ ] Code files only (*.js, *.ts, etc.)
- [ ] Specific pattern: _______
3. **Operation**: What should I do with each file?
- [ ] Extract information (use rlm-query)
- [ ] Transform/update (use rlm-batch)
- [ ] Summarize structure (use rlm-summarize)
Please provide these details.
```
### If Scope Seems Too Large
```
This request would process approximately {N estimated} files.
**Options:**
1. **Narrow the scope** (recommended):
- Specific directory: {suggest path}
- File type filter: {suggest pattern}
- Depth limit: {suggest depth}
2. **Proceed with full scope** using RLM:
- Command: {command}
- Estimated time: {estimate}
- This will process in chunks to avoid overflow
3. **Sample first**:
- Process a subset to verify approach
- Then expand to full scope
Which option do you prefer?
```
## Invocation Examples
### Example 1: Find Pattern Across Codebase
**User**: "find all instances of console.log across the entire project"
**Detection**:
- Trigger: "all instances", "across the entire project"
- Strategy: rlm-query (finding information)
**Extraction**:
- Query: "Find all console.log statements"
- Path: "." (entire project)
- Pattern: "**/*.{js,ts,jsx,tsx}" (JavaScript/TypeScript files)
**Response**:
```
This requires searching across the entire codebase. I'll use RLM processing:
/rlm-query "Find all console.log statements with file and line number" \
--path . \
--pattern "**/*.{js,ts,jsx,tsx}"
This will:
1. Recursively scan all JavaScript/TypeScript files
2. Extract console.log locations
3. Aggregate results into a summary report
Proceeding...
```
### Example 2: Batch Update
**User**: "update every React component to use the new useAuth hook instead of the old AuthContext"
**Detection**:
- Trigger: "update every", "React component"
- Strategy: rlm-batch (transformation)
**Extraction**:
- Operation: "Replace AuthContext with useAuth hook"
- Path: "src/" (source code)
- Pattern: "**/*.{jsx,tsx}" (React components)
- Parallel: 4 (default)
**Response**:
```
This is a batch refactoring task that will affect multiple components. Using RLM:
/rlm-batch "Replace AuthContext with useAuth hook pattern" \
--path src/ \
--pattern "**/*.{jsx,tsx}" \
--parallel 4
This will:
1. Identify all React components using AuthContext
2. Refactor each to use useAuth hook
3. Process 4 files concurrently for efficiency
4. Verify changes compile before proceeding to next
Proceeding with batch operation...
```
### Example 3: Repository Summary
**User**: "summarize the whole repository structure so I can understand what this project does"
**Detection**:
- Trigger: "summarize the whole repository"
- Strategy: rlm-summarize (hierarchical understanding)
**Extraction**:
- Path: "." (entire repo)
- Depth: 3 (good overview depth)
- Format: markdown
**Response**:
```
I'll create a hierarchical summary of the repository using RLM:
/rlm-summarize --path . --depth 3 --output-format markdown
This will:
1. Analyze the top 3 levels of directory structure
2. Identify main modules and their purposes
3. Map dependencies and relationships
4. Generate a markdown summary document
Proceeding...
```
### Example 4: Ambiguous Scope (Clarification Needed)
**User**: "check for missing error handling"
**Detection**:
- No scope quantifiers ("all", "every", "entire")
- Could be single file or entire codebase
**Response**:
```
I can check for missing error handling. To choose the right approach:
**Scope unclear**:
1. Current file only? (I can do this directly)
2. Specific module/directory? (Please specify path)
3. Entire codebase? (I'll use RLM processing)
**If entire codebase, I recommend:**
/rlm-query "Identify functions missing try-catch or error handling" \
--path . \
--pattern "**/*.{js,ts}"
Which scope did you have in mind?
```
## Integration Notes
- **Priority**: Medium (yields to ralph-loop for explicit iteration requests)
- **Exclusivity**: Partial (suggest RLM, but user can override)
- **Confirmation**: Always confirm strategy before invoking RLM commands
- **Fallback**: If user rejects RLM, warn about context limits but proceed if insisted
## Performance Heuristics
### File Count Estimation
**Quick heuristics** for estimating whether RLM is needed:
| Directory | Typical File Count | RLM Recommended? |
|-----------|-------------------|------------------|
| `src/` (small project) | 10-50 | Maybe (depends on size) |
| `src/` (medium project) | 50-200 | Yes |
| `src/` (large project) | 200+ | Definitely |
| `node_modules/` | 10,000+ | Always (if user really wants this) |
| `test/` | Usually ~50-100 | Probably |
| Single directory | <10 | No |
| Single directory | 10-30 | Maybe |
| Single directory | 30+ | Yes |
### Context Window Budgeting
**Rule of thumb**: If estimated total file size exceeds 50% of context window, use RLM.
**Estimates**:
- TypeScript file: ~200 lines avg = ~8,000 tokens
- Test file: ~100 lines avg = ~4,000 tokens
- Config file: ~50 lines avg = ~2,000 tokens
**Context windows**:
- Claude Opus 4.6: 200k tokens → Safe limit ~100k tokens → ~12 large TS files
- GPT-5.3-Codex: 128k tokens → Safe limit ~64k tokens → ~8 large TS files
## Related
- `/rlm-query` command - recursive information extraction
- `/rlm-batch` command - parallel batch processing
- `/rlm-summarize` command - hierarchical summarization
- `@agentic/code/addons/rlm/schemas/rlm-config.yaml` - RLM configuration schema
- `@agentic/code/addons/rlm/docs/rlm-architecture.md` - RLM system design
- `@.aiwg/research/findings/REF-087-recursive-decomposition.md` - Decomposition research
## Version History
- **1.0.0**: Initial implementation for RLM mode detection and routing
This skill detects requests that require recursive decomposition and routes large-scale operations to RLM (Recursive Language Model) processing instead of trying to load everything into context. It prevents context overflow, performance degradation, and memory issues by recommending structured strategies and concrete commands for scanning, transforming, or summarizing many files. The skill is tuned for developer workflows and multi-file codebase tasks.
The skill scans user prompts for high-confidence triggers (quantifiers like "all", scope words like "codebase", recursive terms, and batch terms) and applies heuristics such as path mentions, file-type hints, and estimated file counts. When RLM is appropriate it suggests one of three strategies—rlm-query for information extraction, rlm-batch for transformations, and rlm-summarize for hierarchical overviews—along with parameter defaults for path, pattern, depth, and parallelism.
How do you decide when RLM is necessary?
I look for quantifiers (all/every), scope words (codebase/repository), recursion terms, directory paths, and estimated file counts. If the task likely exceeds a small context window or needs exhaustive traversal, I recommend RLM.
What if I only want a quick check on a few files?
If scope is small (1–5 files) I can process directly. For ambiguous cases I ask for the directory, file types, or a sample so I can choose between direct processing and RLM.